Neowin.net

Why not? google owns most of the web search and ad market. This wouldnt create a monopoly. I dont see why it wouldnt go through.

MS is a software developer... Yahoo is almost essentially based online... nothing wrong with that... just expanding their already existing base... You still and always will have google...

I'm afraid you're wrong there.

In Alexa's rankings:

Google: 2nd
Yahoo: 1st
Windows Live: 4th

Yahoo are already the leader here, so Microsoft would be owning the most visited site in the world.

How old are you?

*Checks profile*

Oh wait, never mind.

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2068U

Where did you get that info from? Oh! From here: Alexa: Top Sites

Alexa is irrelevant and has been for quite some time.

STV

Last edited by STV on 03 May 2008 - 22:36

So, you are claiming that posts by younger people can be disregarded?

Well, my "41" trumps your mere "22"!

My, what a silly way of determining post value!

OK, I stand corrected. I don't know much about this. I just read the Alexa rankings I get for each page courtesy of IE7Pro! I think it counts how long people spend on each site, and it counts every page linked to each domain. That's probably why Yahoo are top, as they have a million different sections!

Neowin isn't doing too bad, either! We're 3,678 on Alexa!

Oh, please. Yahoo is anything *but* intelligent. Google is eating Yahoo alive in every market but IM (despite the presence of GoogleTalk, Google is really not pushing it that hard; notice GoogleTalk's absence from GoogleApps). Even Yahoo admits this. However, MS is pulling out of chasing Yahoo (for now), letting Yahoo stew (sources: AP via MSNBC). Yahoo wanted more money, saying that MS' bid undervalued the company. What MS is doing is pulling out and watching the resultant pole-axing Yahoo's stock will take as a result. Once that happens, Yahoo will come back, *pleading* with MS to make the offer they originally rejected.

Flip-flopping on commitments, then failing to deliver, has been pretty standard practice at MS for a few years now.

How is actually listening to the target (who is so desperate to spurn MS that they would even agree to poison the company by allying with fellow drownee AOL) a fiasco or failing to deliver? Yahoo's board (not necessarily the majority of their stockholders) is so anti-Microsoft that they were absotively posilutely determined to spike the deal. Worse (for Microsoft) they are already being circled by hyenas (especially in the EU) that are determined to nibble the company to death (for reasons having nothing to do with any so-called anticompetitive practices than simply because they tried to compete by stacking the deck in the marketplace and the marketplace rebelled, such as the infamous XP N Editions created solely at the EU's behest).

Apparently, Microsoft is realizing that it can win by *not* riding to the rescue of a failing company (such as Yahoo).

However, watch a lot of pundits excoriate Microsoft for actually listening to Yahoo saying "No Thanks" after Yahoo implodes.

Quite frankly, as a Yahoo stockholder (that also owns Microsoft and even Google stock), I'm decidedly upset with the Yahoo board's actions, especially since they have not proven that their ability to improve shareholder return is worth their salaries.

However, those that are roundly castigating Microsoft for *not* going hostile and taking over Yahoo are probably the same folks that are castigating the US for *not* sending troops to Darfur to end the slow genocide and civil war going on there (while, at the same time, castigating the US for toppling, and then helping apprehend, Saddam Hussein, who was known to have practiced genocide against Kurds within Iraq itself). In short, doing the right thing when it's in your best interest is somehow wrong, whereas doing the "right thing", even when your own citizens largely oppose it (and its not in your own best interests as a nation, either), is supposed to be good? (Never mind that the United States has NO vital interests in the Sudan; in fact, neither does anyone else! While the United States does not, and has not, imported oil from Iraq since prior to the original 1973 Arab oil embargo, the EU nations have, and largely still do, as does Japan. Therefore, getting rid of Saddam, who we of the West helped create in the first place, was indeed in the best interests of the United States, and even Europe.) Nations act in what is perceived to be their own best interests; yes, that even includes Saddam's attempted robbery-writ-large invasion of Kuwait that touched off Desert Storm. (Remember, we of the West, in particular the US and most of what is now the EU, *supported* Saddam in the war with Iran; how worried was he?)

It continues to strike me as somewhat bonkers that those that roundly protest and call for the US to pull our troops *out* of Iraq (where they actually are doing some real good) do so in order to send them to Darfur in the Sudan (where the US has no vital interests, where our allies have no vital interests, and where even the other nations of Africa have told us to steer clear).